Salman Khan snapped outside a Sessions Court in Mumbai on April 7.
Mumbai:
Bollywood actor Salman Khan's lawyer Shrikant Shivade on April 16 questioned how the actor's Toyota Land Cruiser, which was involved in the accident on September 28, 2012 in Bandra, was examined in flat 20 minutes by an RTO officer.
"Is that possible? We now have superfast experts. Medical and blood test done in five minutes, vehicle was examined in 20 minutes," Mr Shivade told Additional Sessions Judge DW Deshpande in the ongoing final arguments in the retrial of the 2002 hit-and-run case.
The defence lawyer pointed out how RTO official RS Keskar, a crucial witness, had changed his statements over the date and time of examining the vehicle.
"Once the witness said he examined the vehicle on September 28, 2002, then he said September 29, 2002. He is a liar and takes recourse to lies whenever it suits him," Mr Shivade said.
Questioning how the vehicle was examined in 20 minutes, Mr Shivade said it takes 5-7 minutes to check the steering, 2-4 minutes for the brakes, one-and-half minutes for the tyres, 4-5 minutes to check the gear box, 10 minutes to check what is mentioned in proforma Col 4,5,6, then 3-4 minutes to check what is mentioned in Col 7, 1-2 minutes to check the spring. All this amounts to over 30 minutes. The witness checks the car and also conducts a test drive of half-km during the morning peak hours," Mr Shivade said.
"Moreover, he was not carrying the required proforma to inspect the vehicles and another official Imtiyaz helped with the technical details, this was the first imported car that he had examined and perhaps the last. Since during training, he (Mr Keskar) had examined a Tata Indica, and now a Toyota Land Cruiser. It is like a Class II student appearing for B.Sc," Mr Shivade added sarcastically.
He said that a tyre burst had caused the accident that morning, killing one pavement dweller and injuring four others - "Once the witness says the tyres were deflated, then he says air pressure was low - what is correct? Our version is correct, it was a tyre burst," Mr Shivade argued. (Also Read: 'Salman Khan's Driver is Lying,' Says Prosecution in Hit-And-Run Case)
He said according to a survey, 35 per cent of all accidents were caused due to burst tyres.
In a shocking disclosure supported with statements, Mr Shivade asked why it took two days to file the FIR in the case. "The RTO official said till Sunday (September 29, 2002), he was not shown the FIR and was informed it was being prepared. Why this delay?" he asked.
The defence lawyer also raised questions on the "professional competency" of a chemical analyst D Balachander and the manner in which forensic labs function in India, and discrepancies pertaining to the blood samples. (Also Read: 'Salman Khan's Blood Samples Were Tampered With,' Says Defence in Hit-And-Run Case)
He pointed out that the blood samples of Salman were analysed at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, which neither has an ISO certification nor is accredited to the National Board of Accreditation.
Mr Shivade argued that rules were violated in the manner in which the test was conducted, and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused (Mr Khan's) blood contained alcohol to the tune of 62 mg per 100 ml.
Blasting Mr Balachander, the defence lawyer alleged that he did not know how to conduct the tests, does not know difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis, difference between isometric and idometric tests.
"How much can we rely on him? It is like, 'I scored a century, but I don't know how to play. I don't know the difference between a bat and a ball'," Mr Shivade said, submitting copies of Maharashtra Medical Code and Civil Medical Code to Judge Deshpande.
"Is that possible? We now have superfast experts. Medical and blood test done in five minutes, vehicle was examined in 20 minutes," Mr Shivade told Additional Sessions Judge DW Deshpande in the ongoing final arguments in the retrial of the 2002 hit-and-run case.
The defence lawyer pointed out how RTO official RS Keskar, a crucial witness, had changed his statements over the date and time of examining the vehicle.
"Once the witness said he examined the vehicle on September 28, 2002, then he said September 29, 2002. He is a liar and takes recourse to lies whenever it suits him," Mr Shivade said.
Questioning how the vehicle was examined in 20 minutes, Mr Shivade said it takes 5-7 minutes to check the steering, 2-4 minutes for the brakes, one-and-half minutes for the tyres, 4-5 minutes to check the gear box, 10 minutes to check what is mentioned in proforma Col 4,5,6, then 3-4 minutes to check what is mentioned in Col 7, 1-2 minutes to check the spring. All this amounts to over 30 minutes. The witness checks the car and also conducts a test drive of half-km during the morning peak hours," Mr Shivade said.
"Moreover, he was not carrying the required proforma to inspect the vehicles and another official Imtiyaz helped with the technical details, this was the first imported car that he had examined and perhaps the last. Since during training, he (Mr Keskar) had examined a Tata Indica, and now a Toyota Land Cruiser. It is like a Class II student appearing for B.Sc," Mr Shivade added sarcastically.
He said that a tyre burst had caused the accident that morning, killing one pavement dweller and injuring four others - "Once the witness says the tyres were deflated, then he says air pressure was low - what is correct? Our version is correct, it was a tyre burst," Mr Shivade argued. (Also Read: 'Salman Khan's Driver is Lying,' Says Prosecution in Hit-And-Run Case)
He said according to a survey, 35 per cent of all accidents were caused due to burst tyres.
In a shocking disclosure supported with statements, Mr Shivade asked why it took two days to file the FIR in the case. "The RTO official said till Sunday (September 29, 2002), he was not shown the FIR and was informed it was being prepared. Why this delay?" he asked.
The defence lawyer also raised questions on the "professional competency" of a chemical analyst D Balachander and the manner in which forensic labs function in India, and discrepancies pertaining to the blood samples. (Also Read: 'Salman Khan's Blood Samples Were Tampered With,' Says Defence in Hit-And-Run Case)
He pointed out that the blood samples of Salman were analysed at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, which neither has an ISO certification nor is accredited to the National Board of Accreditation.
Mr Shivade argued that rules were violated in the manner in which the test was conducted, and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused (Mr Khan's) blood contained alcohol to the tune of 62 mg per 100 ml.
Blasting Mr Balachander, the defence lawyer alleged that he did not know how to conduct the tests, does not know difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis, difference between isometric and idometric tests.
"How much can we rely on him? It is like, 'I scored a century, but I don't know how to play. I don't know the difference between a bat and a ball'," Mr Shivade said, submitting copies of Maharashtra Medical Code and Civil Medical Code to Judge Deshpande.
